Archaeology and the Bible51

Rating:

Topic: Archaeology and the Bible (Read 6705 times)

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

Oh good! Now you know how we feel about you whenever you rear your head in argumentative threads. The only difference here is I call them as I see them (you are and have been childish constantly), whereas I'm telling the truth about your ridiculous record here.

Quote

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

I'm sure all the logic and reason being presented has only strengthened your ability to be irrational (considering your responses to waterbearer again).

Quote

If some would actually put children like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.

Abrupt and I are on good terms with eachother (I hope he can say the same with me), even if we do get in heated debates. Him and Falcon9 though...I'm uncertain if I can say the same. I'm under the impression that he is not aware of your irrational and childish behavior, and that's why I responded to him to give him the quick story of what's going on.

Abrupt and I are on good terms with each other (I hope he can say the same), even if we do get in heated debates. Him and Falcon9 though...I'm uncertain if I can say the same. I'm under the impression that he is not aware of your irrational and childish behavior, and that's why I responded to him to give him the quick story of what's going on.

While I used wonder sometimes whether someone else occassionally used "Abrupt's" 'nym in the earlier stages of d+d, (in which he indicated that his intention was to facilitate and hone his debate and reasoning skills by using mine as a foil), that is no longer speculated more recently. Either I'm a poor 'teacher' or, "Abrupt" is a poor student, (perhaps a combination of both - or, neither since it was not my intention to 'teach' a course in logic, even by example). No doubt having such an 'ally' as 'johnnie' bolsters "Abrupt's" position by leaps and bounds.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.

"Fail play" indeed. The xtian aplogetic's legalistic smoke-and-mirrors cut&paste which you posted was rebutted in detail. Summarily, Greenleaf, (a xtian apolgetic), unsuccessfully attempts to equate the "genuiness" of the physical form of an ancient document with the contents of that document.

Since "johnnie" has blinded himself to my posts using the "ignore" function, (just as he's mind-blinded himself with blind-faith), maybe "Falconer02" will quote my previous rebuttal when/if he replies in order to debate the points.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible". He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuinethemselves). The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim. An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to). Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.

" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).

it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them. Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default. The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.

"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere. I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.[/quote]Hey Johnnie...... look up......not at your ceiling Gumby, in this post.

This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible", (being a xtian apologetic). He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuinethemselves). The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.[/quote]

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim. An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to). Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.

" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).

it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them. Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default. The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.

"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere. I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.

Thanks, 'walks'. What do you estimate as a response; spin-mode or, gloss-over the refutations?[/quote]No charge. My guess would be something totally lacking in any thing close to an intelligent rebuttal(to anyone with any common sense), if anything at all.

No charge. My guess would be something totally lacking in any thing close to an intelligent rebuttal(to anyone with any common sense), if anything at all.

Ah, a combination of both spin-mode and some glossing-over diversion then. Seems par for the course when they are refuted when they could address the debated points in a rebuttal, (and at least pretend that they were actually debating).

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my uni--OH WAIT! Sorry! Sounded like a whiner there for a sec. Fortunately atheism holds no ancient texts or commandments I must blindly obey, so I don't understand how one could label me a coward or an "unfit" atheist when there's really not much there to cling to aside from rational thinking. I'm just a bit late to the ongoing debate, and I apologize for that if time was of the essence on your side. However I must point out that if you preferred the high road, your post count would be miniscule compared to what it is now from all those irrational drive-by attack posts one could easily find in your record here.

Unfortunately and fortunately due to my absence, Falcon9 and Walksalone have provided you with more than enough refutions to your claims. I would highly recommend you take Falcon9 off of ignore just for those posts atleast if you plan to explain why our viewpoints are incorrect. I will mention that we did ask you for unbiased sources (mainly pertaining to people), and you failed to do that from the get-go.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my uni--OH WAIT! Sorry! Sounded like a whiner there for a sec. Fortunately atheism holds no ancient texts or commandments I must blindly obey, so I don't understand how one could label me a coward or an "unfit" atheist when there's really not much there to cling to aside from rational thinking. I'm just a bit late to the ongoing debate, and I apologize for that if time was of the essence on your side. However I must point out that if you preferred the high road, your post count would be miniscule compared to what it is now from all those irrational drive-by attack posts one could easily find in your record here.

Unfortunately and fortunately due to my absence, Falcon9 and Walksalone have provided you with more than enough refutions to your claims. I would highly recommend you take Falcon9 off of ignore just for those posts atleast if you plan to explain why our viewpoints are incorrect. I will mention that we did ask you for unbiased sources (mainly pertaining to people), and you failed to do that from the get-go.

It's alright if he doesn't take me off of "ignore" while not ignoring me, (hypocritical as that is), because 'walks' kindly quoted the relavent post.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.